bos:
> On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 10:43 AM, FFT <fft1976 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > Are MPI bindings still the best way of using Haskell on Beowulf
> > clusters? It's my feeling that the bindings stagnated, or are they
> > just very mature?
>>> MPI itself hasn't changed in 14 years, so it's not exactly a moving target.
> (There's an MPI 2.0, but its most visible changes are not really usable.)
>>> What's the story with distributed memory multiprocessing? Are Haskell
> programmers uninterested in it, or are things other than MPI used with
> it?
>>> The ratio of work to payoff is unfortunately very high, so it seems to have
> been abandoned as a topic of fruitful research.
Though note the new paper for ICPP:
"In this paper, we investigate the differences and tradeoffs
imposed by two parallel Haskell dialects running on multicore
machines. GpH and Eden are both constructed using the
highly-optimising sequential GHC compiler, and share thread
scheduling, and other elements, from a common code base. The GpH
implementation investigated here uses a physically-shared heap,
which should be well-suited to multicore architectures. In contrast,
the Eden implementation adopts an approach that has been designed
for use on distributed-memory parallel machines
"
http://www-fp.cs.st-and.ac.uk/~kh/mainICPP09.pdf
-- Don